-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Gavin Andresen
gavinandre...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel like there is a lot of in the weeds discussion here about
theoretical, what-if-this-and-that-happens-in-the-future scenarios.
I would just like to point out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet
app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,
and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it
has to.
On 10/25/13 5:02 AM, Andreas
There's no reason the signing can't be done all at once. The wallet
app would create and sign three transactions, paying avg-std.D, avg,
and avg+std.D fee. It just waits to broadcast the latter two until it
has to.
i see several reasons why this is problematic.
So how would that work in a
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Andreas Petersson wrote:
Worth thinking about the whole ecosystem of wallets involved; they all
have to handle double-spends gracefully to make tx replacement of any
kind user friendly. We should try to give people a heads up that this is
Two thoughts:
1. Please keep it simple, miner will override it either.
2. If block construction algorithm compares alternate chains and not individual
transactions, then receiver can bump up the fee by spending the unconfirmed
output again with higher fee, no need for replacement in the
Do you think we're at the point where wallets have to be able to actively
bid the fee using replacement due to block contention?
I think a fee estimation API is just a data point. Depending on the
properties of the estimator, and how that's presented in the UI, it could
serve to either
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:35:34PM -0700, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
Do you think we're at the point where wallets have to be able to
actively bid the fee using replacement due to block contention?
If Bitcoin continues to grow we probably will be at some as-yet-unknown
point in the future.
I think
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jeremy Spilman jer...@taplink.co wrote:
**
Gavin, can you confirm the best place to read up on the discuss fee
estimation changes for v0.9?
The blog post is the best place for high-level overview.
The (closed for now, but it will come back) pull request is
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Quick thought on how to make blockchain-based fee estimates work better
in the context of out-of-band mining contracts: have miners advertise in
their coinbase's what fees were actually paid, as opposed to appear to
have
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:46:41PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
Well, miners are all supposed to be more or less equivalent - modulo
differences in tx acceptance policies - so I'd hope that having out of bad
fee mechanisms yet still broadcasting the TX isn't that common. If it was
broadcasted, it
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote:
Eligius has contracts to do transaction mining, and it's currently 10%
of the hashing power.
Yes, and I asked Luke what percentage of that 10% is OOB fee payments, and
the answer is a small percentage.
So: there are
11 matches
Mail list logo
